<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (3) TMI 925 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767539</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi granted stay of demand worth Rs. 1,32,23,10,668 against the assessee. The tribunal found that AO failed to follow DRP directions for rectification and that the same income determined under section 143(1) was again added in the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13), resulting in double taxation of identical income. The stay was granted until disposal of quantum appeal or appeal against section 143(1) order, or for 180 days, whichever is earlier.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 925 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767539</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi granted stay of demand worth Rs. 1,32,23,10,668 against the assessee. The tribunal found that AO failed to follow DRP directions for rectification and that the same income determined under section 143(1) was again added in the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13), resulting in double taxation of identical income. The stay was granted until disposal of quantum appeal or appeal against section 143(1) order, or for 180 days, whichever is earlier.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>